For those that think Firefox is doing so well

Status
Not open for further replies.
SirKenin said:
Who wants to pay for a webbrowser when they can get several of them for free? That doesn't make any sense. You talk about me not making any sense.

Firefox cannot display numerous websites correctly for all sorts of reasons, from screwed up code (I can cite BBS') to messing up the layout of the page, to the colors, to the lack of ability to display multimedia content because it is crippled "in the interests of safety"..
Click to expand...

well who wants to pay for all sorts of extra security? people are throwing away perfectly good (but highly toxic) computers and dumping them more often then not in landfills. Why? because its easier and cheaper to buy a replacements than to disinfect it or secure it.

http://www.umsl.edu/~sauter/spam/17spy.html

as far as websites that cant manage to be coded to W3 compliance @#cK em

IMO activeX is a sin against nature and is the stupidest protocol that should have been killed at birth

and with the noscript extension to firefox which offers unpresidented control of what you allow to run on your box (rule based w\ temporary enable available) and WindizUpdate I see no reason not to lock down IE altogether. If it wasnt for the fact automatic updates requires it to function Id rip it out of every single one of my clients boxes altogether.

and I have eliminated it entirely from the box Im currently typing from as I manually update through technet
I too have not had to deal with a single adware or spyware infection since switching


%$@##@@ IE

Ut Oh and here I was going to do my reclining wallflower act today :p
 
Ice Czar said:
Ut Oh and here I was going to do my reclining wallflower act today :p
Click to expand...
I believe you are holding your composure fairly well, actually. ;)
 
PaHick said:
Is this the site she went to .....

http://movies.aol.com/?ncid=AOLMOV00170000000007&sem=1

if so works perfectly in FF.

EDIT**

Called my cousin, because he runs FF 1.0.5...he looked at that site and the drop down boxes wouldnt work for him(under Showtimes and such). I have 1.0.6 and it works great.
Click to expand...
Upon further inspection, it does work. I will have to get back to her on that. It was viewing a trailer that I thought Firefox could not do. You had to install an ActiveX plugin. I guess they have a Firefox compatible plug in for it. The minute I saw ActiveX I immediately though it would need IE because ActiveX was IE only as far as I ever knew.
 
:D
takebacktheweb_125x50.png
:D
 
well I hope I didn't scare him off :p

While respect for Admins and Mods is a cornerstone of making this place work, that only extends to thier official directives. The outburst of opinion above is by no means "protected" under that clause and is fair game to shoot full of holes.:p
 
Ice Czar said:
well I hope I didn't scare him off :p

While respect for Admins and Mods is a cornerstone of making this place work, that only extends to thier official directives. The outburst of opinion above is by no means "protected" under that clause and is fair game to shoot full of holes.:p
Click to expand...

I dont think it was the Admin status that scared him off.......You just had to go a post all those damn facts didnt you........

You know, that was a dirty trick .....:)
 
Ice Czar said:
well I hope I didn't scare him off :p

While respect for Admins and Mods is a cornerstone of making this place work, that only extends to thier official directives. The outburst of opinion above is by no means "protected" under that clause and is fair game to shoot full of holes.:p
Click to expand...
No, you didn't scare me off. What are you going to do? Kick me out for stating my opinions? Hardly.

I have plenty to do and as such haven't been around. Fuck, you disappear for a day and look at the little games all the little dweebs are playing behind your back. "We are right because he hasn't responded". How pathetic. I could say more, but I'll refrain. I stated my opinions. I see no point in recycling through them over and over again.

However, I'm not going to go running around grabbing screenshots to prove my case. UBB BBS' are the boards that I know of that fall victim to shitty firefox coding. I know Firefox struggles with web colors. I'm not going to do a compendium of websites that use ActiveX to provide their multimedia and interactive content. I know there are a zillion of them out there and quite frankly if people don't believe me I don't give a shit. I know Firefox has fallen victim to some wicked exploits, lately quite a few of them. I'm not the one using Firefox and I didn't come into this thread to change their minds.

Let the kids sit there and justify their fandweebism over and over again while the men actually go out and do something worthwhile with their time, like making money.
 
Ice Czar said:
The outburst of opinion above is by no means "protected" under that clause and is fair game to shoot full of holes.:p
Click to expand...
This is not in reference to you, but I've witnessed a few times where, IMO this wasn't exactly the case.
 
one of the reasons Ive made that point here ;)

there is a seperation, and in the event you see something that might require admin oversight, PM an admin ;)
of course that is best done by a disinterested third party, but those directly involved of course account for the Lion's Share

few mods are born, most are made ;)
 
SirKenin said:
<snip>
I'm not the one using Firefox and I didn't come into this thread to change their minds.
<snip>
Click to expand...
What exactly does that mean? It seems like the whole point of this thread was to convince all of us that firefox sucks. And thanks for wasting everyone's time. You go on and on for five pages, repeating the same shit over and over, while we repeatedly ask you to support your claims. Finally you flat out refuse to support your claims. You lose the argument. What was the point of this thread? You say you've stated your opinions already, but many times you've stated them as fact. So far you've presented very few actual facts. I know I said I was done with this thread, but I just had to reply. I cannot believe this thread lasted as long as it has.
 
SirKenin said:
I know Firefox has fallen victim to some wicked exploits, lately quite a few of them.
Click to expand...

http://www.windowssecrets.com/comp/050512/
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-9592-0.html?forumID=88&threadID=174011&start=0

Is Firefox still safer than IE?

By Brian Livingston
Windows Secrets Newsletter

The popular Firefox browser received a security upgrade, known as version 1.0.4, when the Mozilla Foundation released the new code on May 11. This upgrade closes a security hole that could allow a hacker Web site to install software without a visitors' knowledge or approval.

This is the fourth minor update to Firefox since the open-source browser's 1.0 release on Nov. 9, 2004. That doesn't seem like very many patches to me, compared with Firefox's dominant competition, Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE), which is included in every copy of Windows. But I've heard a surprising amount of comment that Firefox might no longer be as secure as IE.

At Microsoft's Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC), held in Seattle April 25-27, for example, an IE product manager made this case explicitly. Firefox had had (at that time) "three major releases," she said, while Internet Explorer 6.0 had had none. This statement was presented as though a lack of upgrades to IE was a benefit.

In fact, Microsoft has released at least 20 major security patches for Windows or Internet Explorer since November 2004. Most of these patches were rated "Critical," Microsoft's most severe security alert level.

The evidence I've seen so far indicates that Firefox remains much more secure than IE. But it's worth our time to take a closer look.

IE users were exposed for 200 days in 2004

Some remarkable statistics comparing the major Web browsers have been developed by Scanit NV, an international security firm with headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, and Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The company painstakingly researched the dates when vulnerabilities were first discovered in various browsers, and the dates when the holes were subsequently patched.

The firm found that IE was wide open for a total of 200 days in 2004, or 54% of the year, to exploits that were "in the wild" on the Internet.

The Firefox browser and its older sibling Mozilla had no periods in 2004 when a security flaw went unpatched before exploits started circulating on the Net. With the latest 1.0.4 upgrade, Firefox has retained its "patch-before-hackers-can-strike" record so far in 2005, as well.

These statistics are so important to understanding the "attack surface" of the major browsers that we should break down this study into its individual findings:

• IE suffered from unpatched security holes for 359 days in 2004. According to Scanit, there were only 7 days out of 366 in 2004 during which IE had no unpatched security holes. This means IE had no official patch available against well-publicized vulnerabilities for 98% of the year.

• Attacks on IE weaknesses circulated "in the wild" for 200 of those days. Scanit records the first sighting of actual working hacker code on the Internet. In this way, the firm was able to determine how many days an IE user was exposed to possible harm. When Microsoft released a patch for an IE problem, Scanit "stopped the clock" on the period of vulnerability.

• Mozilla and Firefox patched all vulnerabilities before hacker code circulated. Scanit found that the Mozilla family of browsers, which share the same code base, went only 26 days in 2004 during which a Windows user was using a browser with a known security hole. Another 30 days involved a weakness that was only in the Mac OS version. Scanit reports that each vulnerability was patched before exploits were running on the Web. This resulted in zero days when a Mozilla or Firefox user could have been infected.

The Opera browser also experienced no days during which unpatched holes faced actual exploits, but Scanit began keeping statistics on Opera only since September 2004.

To see Scanit's visual timeline of these holes, exploits, and fixes, visit the firm's Internet Explorer page. On that page, click "Next Page" to see the timelines for Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera.

Firefox fixes take days, IE takes months

From the record to date, the Mozilla/Firefox team has shown that new security discoveries typically result in a patch being released in only a week or so.

This was certainly true in the case of Firefox version 1.0.4. The primary security hole that was closed by that version was unexpectedly publicized by the French Security Incident Response Team (FrSIRT) on May 5. The Firefox patch was released only six days later. (The apparent discoverer of the flaw, the Greyhats Security Group, had been working responsibly with Firefox's development team and criticized the leak.)

Perhaps the responsiveness of the Mozilla development group will shame Microsoft into fixing security holes much faster in the future. The situation has become so bad that eEye Digital Security, a respected consulting service, maintains an "upcoming advisories" page showing how much time Microsoft is allowing critical problems that are reported to the Redmond company to go uncorrected.

At present, eEye's count reveals that three critical unpatched issues currently affect Microsoft's products. None of these have gone unpatched longer than 60 days, the period after which eEye considers a patch to be "overdue." But some critical, widely-known security holes went as long as six months in 2003 and 2004 without an official fix being made available by Microsoft.

Another security firm that tracks security holes in IE, Firefox, and many other applications is Secunia, based in Copenhagen, Denmark. As of today, Secunia reports that there are still 19 unpatched security flaws in IE, the most severe of which is rated "highly critical." Firefox has only 4 unpatched flaws, all of which are rated "less critical" or "not critical," the lowest severity rating. Opera has none.

Microsoft officials often excuse their tardiness in fixing security holes in IE by saying that the code is so complex that any fix has a high likelihood of breaking something else. Well, who integrated IE so tightly into the operating system that the browser is so delicate? It's Microsoft's own poor programming that causes much of the software giant's very visible problems.

Microsoft employs some of the best software developers in the world. The company enjoys a cash reserve of $35 billion and is highly profitable. Yet a tiny company that builds open-source browser software is making the Redmond giant look foolish and incompetent in securing its products.

I have no particular attachment to the Mozilla Foundation or its products. If the foundation's browser software was a threat to Windows users, I'd say so. At the present time, several serious unpatched holes are known to exist in IE, while few or none plague Firefox. This isn't a religious issue, it's just a fact.

The foundation announced two weeks ago that they'd surpassed 50 million downloads of the free Firefox browser. The application is largely responsible for knocking down IE from a 94% market share in May 2004 to 87% in April 2005, according to OneStat. That's a remarkable accomplishment, considering that IE is free and comes preinstalled with Windows. Sites with a base of expert Windows users report much higher levels of Firefox usage.

How to keep Firefox upgraded

No matter how fast Firefox's developers update it, it doesn't do you any good unless you've got the browser configured to notify you of updates. This is a simple matter, but it's worth making sure you have it right:

• Enable update checking. In Firefox, click Tools, Options, Advanced. Ensure that the selection for Periodically check for updates is on, both for Firefox and for My Extensions and Themes. This is the default setting, so most Firefox users will automatically get notices of updates.

• Check for upgrades manually, if desired. You should see a dialog box informing you of new updates as the Mozilla Foundation releases them. There's a random delay, however, so every user doesn't try to download a new version on the same day. To check whether there's an update that applies to you, click the red up-arrow that's in the upper-right toolbar of the Firefox menu area.

• Download the latest version. If a dialog box tells you an update is available, close the window, then open Firefox's download page. If you want a version other than Windows U.S. English, click the Other Systems and Languages link and select your preferred version. Download the executable file to a temporary area of your hard disk, then close all apps (including Firefox itself) and run the installer.

It's no longer necessary or recommended that you uninstall Firefox before upgrading to a new version. A few glitches affected upgrades to versions 1.0.1 and 1.0.2, but this has been corrected since 1.0.3.

It's unfortunate that hackers are so attracted to browsers as a way to take over users' computers. But that's where the money is, as bank robber Willie Sutton once said. We have to accept a certain amount of upgrading as the price of using complex Windows applications. But we can reduce the threat to ourselves and others by using browsers that have a proven record of rapid, responsible development.
Click to expand...

Next :p
 
See how easy it is to provide evidence to support ones claims, SirKenin? :p
 
Ice Czar said:
http://www.windowssecrets.com/comp/050512/
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-9592-0.html?forumID=88&threadID=174011&start=0



Next :p
Click to expand...
That article just proves the one point I tried to make that IE was more vulnerable because it is more popular. That doesn't make Firefox a wonder of encoding. It makes it a crippled browser that is part of a minority that is only safe because it isn't a target worth attacking. It doesn't have enough of a market share.

THAT is my point. You get these twits in here that want me to support arguments that Firefox has coding flaws with all kinds of screenshots, and lists trying to force me to do their homework for them, but that wasn't the whole point of this thread. That's a sidenote, a sidetrack, whatever, and if they are too lazy to get off their own asses and do their own homework, I'm not going to oblige them. I charge my clients $50/hour to work for them. If you want to pay me $50/hour to work for you, fine, but I'm not going to waste time that can be spent making money on trying to prove a point to you that I don't give a flying fiddlers fuck if you believe me or not.

Did I lose the argument in your eyes? Is that what this is all about? Every thread is an argument that has to be won? Are we all as childish as jpmkm? Or can it simply be an exchange of ideas? An exchange where if you believe me, fine, if you don't fine. Quite frankly any fandweeb that reads this isn't going to change his mind whether I post no screenshots or 100 screenshots. S/he'll always have an excuse to justify his/her fandweebism.

Some people can be so damn dense.
 
and how difficult it is to disprove a wild assertion that there are "a zillion" sites that can't manage to conform to the damn standard for coding.

to belabor my point on security

http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/page.php?name=stats2004

and to refute the original proposition (same page)

This might mean that Mozilla is becoming more and more popular. It may also mean that the Browser Test is becoming more known to people likely to use Mozilla, such as Linux users. On the other hand, as the graph below clearly shows, the majority of Mozilla users who visited the Browser Test run it on Windows, not on Linux or any other operating system.
Click to expand...

BTW the test is here > http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/
if you are running noscript you have to allow them to run the test :p
 
Ice Czar said:
and how difficult it is to disprove a wild assertion that there are "a zillion" sites that can't manage to conform to the damn standard for coding.

to belabor my point on security

http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/page.php?name=stats2004

and to refute the original proposition (same page)



BTW the test is here > http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/
if you are running noscript you have to allow them to run the test :p
Click to expand...
The stats clearly show Firefox at 8% and dropping over the last month, although dropping is no big deal as pointed out earlier on in the thread. That position is reiterated over more than a dozen websites with 100s of thousands of websites contributing to the stats.

"Might mean" is meaningless when the stats very clearly demonstrate otherwise.

So in short, the OP is hardly refuted (and it's good that we're getting back to the OP.. These little brats talk about presenting refuting evidence, yet not one of them has actually refuted the OP. They drag the thread off into sidetracks and ask me to refute a bunch of deraillers. What a load of shit).
 
SirKenin said:
That article just proves the one point I tried to make that IE was more vulnerable because it is more popular. That doesn't make Firefox a wonder of encoding. It makes it a crippled browser that is part of a minority that is only safe because it isn't a target worth attacking. It doesn't have enough of a market share.
Click to expand...
I just knew you were going to break out the good old market share excuse on this one. See the thing is, it actually doesn't support that claim. From what I gather from the article, the main point it was trying to make was that IE is vulnerable to unpatched security holes much longer than mozilla, firefox, or opera are. It's not a market share issue at all. Although it mentions this, the point of the article was not that IE has more security holes, just that it takes Microsoft a very long time to patch holes, even critical ones. As the article states, Microsoft is a huge company with many more programmers than the Mozilla foundation, yet it takes them much longer to patch holes. And how in the fuck does IE being more popular make Firefox a crippled browser?

THAT is my point. You get these twits in here that want me to support arguments that Firefox has coding flaws with all kinds of screenshots, and lists trying to force me to do their homework for them, but that wasn't the whole point of this thread. That's a sidenote, a sidetrack, whatever, and if they are too lazy to get off their own asses and do their own homework, I'm not going to oblige them. I charge my clients $50/hour to work for them. If you want to pay me $50/hour to work for you, fine, but I'm not going to waste time that can be spent making money on trying to prove a point to you that I don't give a flying fiddlers fuck if you believe me or not.
Click to expand...
Umm... is it really so much to ask that you support your arguments, especially when they are as trollish and illogical as they are? You have wasted so much time already. You've spent five pages making the same bullshit claims, when you could have used that time to gather the evidence that, according to you, is all over the place, and therefore should only take a couple minutes of your time to find, and post it on page one of this thread. It is not our homework to do. It is not our job to support your claims. That is just stupid. We support our own claims and you are supposed to support yours. What if I came in here and posted a thread stating that firefox is the best browser ever and all other browsers suck, and then tell anyone who disagrees with me that they need to do their research? No. That's not how it works. *I* need to support *my* claims. If you don't give a fuck if any of us believe you then what the hell is the point of this thread? Why did you start this thread?

Did I lose the argument in your eyes? Is that what this is all about? Every thread is an argument that has to be won? Are we all as childish as jpmkm? Or can it simply be an exchange of ideas? An exchange where if you believe me, fine, if you don't fine. Quite frankly any fandweeb that reads this isn't going to change his mind whether I post no screenshots or 100 screenshots. S/he'll always have an excuse to justify his/her fandweebism.

Some people can be so damn dense.
Click to expand...
Posting an incredibly trollish post is indeed looking for an argument. What exactly did you expect? I'm not saying that this argument necessarily has to be won, but if you cannot support your arguments then you lose. An argument is an exchange of ideas. If it is fine that we don't believe you, then why do you keep coming back and posting the same shit over and over. If we post saying we don't believe you and that is okay by you, then why do you keep replying? And thanks for calling me childish. I, one of the many in this thread who makes claims and then so eloquently supports them, am childish. I, the one who requests that others support their claims so as to further our intellectual discussions, am childish. You, sir, however, the one who makes wild, fantastic, and illogical claims with no supporting evidence whatsoever, are the pinnacle of maturity, and for that I bow before you. Now, is this thread over yet?
 
SirKenin said:
The stats clearly show Firefox at 8% and dropping over the last month, although dropping is no big deal as pointed out earlier on in the thread. That position is reiterated over more than a dozen websites with 100s of thousands of websites contributing to the stats.

"Might mean" is meaningless when the stats very clearly demonstrate otherwise.

So in short, the OP is hardly refuted (and it's good that we're getting back to the OP.. These little brats talk about presenting refuting evidence, yet not one of them has actually refuted the OP. They drag the thread off into sidetracks and ask me to refute a bunch of deraillers. What a load of shit).
Click to expand...
What exactly is there to refute in the OP? Firefox usage went down a bit for a month after rising for several months. I thought all of us agreed on that? And I thought all of us agreed that it's no big deal. And I thought all of us agreed that a one month trend doesn't mean jack shit. So if you want to get back to the OP, then please state what exactly the point of the OP was so that we can discuss that.
 
jpmkm said:
What exactly is there to refute in the OP? Firefox usage went down a bit for a month after rising for several months. I thought all of us agreed on that? And I thought all of us agreed that it's no big deal. And I thought all of us agreed that a one month trend doesn't mean jack shit. So if you want to get back to the OP, then please state what exactly the point of the OP was so that we can discuss that.
Click to expand...
It means that if you have nothing further to add to the OP, then shut the hell up and stop trying to drag me off on a sidetrack getting me to refute your stupid deraillers, because I don't care. Do you get that or shall I beat it into your proverbial cranium?

I offer any further opinions based on my experience with firefox and that of many people I have talked to. I don't give a rat's ass if you agree with them or not. I don't want to hear your refutations. I'm not going to sit here wasting my time arguing with you about how great firefox is, because it isn't. That's all there is to it. I gave you my opinions and experiences. Take them for what they're worth because the one thing I'm NOT going to do is go way off on a tangent and waste MY time talking to a brick wall.

Clearly you don't understand the value of time, but I do. Being in business helped me figure it out really quickly. Refuting your deraillers and proving my opinions and observations to an audience that doesn't give a shit about what I think, rather just wants to justify their fandweebism, does not contribute to the OP, it makes me waste time and it just isn't going to happen.

I've wasted enough time on you and you just aren't worth it, yet like a little prick you start going off about winning arguments because I don't want to invest time in your sideshow. Provide your facts, fine, but do yourself a favor and provide facts about the OP. Keep your goddamn deraillments to yourself and your own threads because frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Get it now? Good.

Does that make me an ass*%&? Then so be it.
 
Now, I am done with this thread. Let the little children go on about winning arguments to compensate for their lack of size. This thread was never meant to be a flamewar or a "Firefox is better than IE" war, so I'm ducking out.

If you use it, that's fine. If you don't, welcome to the 87% majority.
 
SirKenin said:
and lists trying to force me to do their homework for them,
Click to expand...

backing up your assertions isnt forcing someone to do thier own homework
its providing evidence to support your own assertions, a point that seems to have escaped you

SirKenin said:
little dweebs, How pathetic, fandweebism, while the men actually go out and do something worthwhile, these twits, too lazy to get off their own asses and do their own homework, as childish as jpmkm?
Click to expand...

Eristic Dialectic stratagems

8 Make your opponent angry.
An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
Example: You can say, "That is fascism" or "Atheism" or "Superstition."
In making an objection of this kind you take for granted
1)That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited;
and
2)The system referred to has been entirely refuted by the current audience.

SirKenin said:
The stats clearly show Firefox at 8% and dropping over the last month.
Looks like Firefox isn't even a force to be bothered with, never mind reckoning with.
Click to expand...

your own link http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/08/12/HNfirefoxloses_1.html

However, Firefox's advances in the market against IE have been extremely impressive and at this point it's impossible to tell whether July's results are the beginning of downward trend for the open source market or a one-time anomaly, he said.
Click to expand...

when attacked on the veracity of the report, and more importantly the logical fallacy of your conclusion you resort to
(that fallacy being that since there was a blip in tha adoption, that a more secure alternative is suddenly irrelevant, a gaping hole in the original proposition that you have not even come close to substatiating.)

SirKenin said:
Some shop it must be if you don't even know that the reasons IE is getting attacked are 1) the market share and 2) Not that it is tied with the O/S, that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Rather it has to do with the fact that Microsoft is balancing functionality with security, a deadly game that the ladies at Firefox do not play. Firefox lacks key browsing functionality in the interest of "safety". Even still, they get attacked succesfully.

Microsoft then attacked the security issue by providing Microsoft Antispyware to beef up their browser. So, now they have the best of both worlds while Firefox at it's whopping 8% has to claim they lack functionality to browse half the websites on the Internet.
.
Click to expand...

lets count the logical fallcies in that statement shall we?
1. Market share as a motive for coding exploits and that Firefox not being intergrated with the shell it irrelevant.

that is infact hardly the case as its far easier to gain total control of the OS with an integrated browser, and that the severity of the exploits effecting IE historically far exceed those of Firefox.

2. Your contradicting yourself, attacked on the merits of your arguement you escalated the scope "they lack functionality to browse half the websites on the Internet."

3. How is rolling out another product (that may eventually have potential as a profit source) address the short comings of the product that by default is shoved down everyones throat?

SirKenin said:
Did I lose the argument in your eyes? Is that what this is all about? Every thread is an argument that has to be won?
Click to expand...

you have made a very trollish and infalmitory claim and not substantiated it
and so far are employing nearly every trick in the book inorder to "win" :p
 
SirKenin said:
shall I beat it into your proverbial cranium?
Click to expand...

let me make this crystal clear
threats of physical violence are grounds for an immediate permaban
if you are unable to adapt your style to the required norm, you will be gone.

you have been treading very close to the line and the denegration, while a strategem, is one that will now stop
youll have to resort to evidence and logic

since you have appearently departed, Im locking this, if youd like a rebuttal, a PM will reopen it
provided your able to continue in a civil manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top